"Eric: One thing I find particularly frustrating is when a game forces me to use an input scheme that doesn't feel natural or at a minimum doesn't follow the conventions of other established games in that genre. I don't think any gamer likes it when a developer feels they know better than their audience. Options and choices are good, especially on something so critical to how a game feels."
This is terribly wrong, and is something I've never liked about the whole "customize it to the max" philosophy
1) conventions can be good or bad, but they are certainly not "natural", they are as artificial as it gets. I find it weird that these developers on the Wii think controls must flatten on estabilished conventions for the genre. We're not sheep, we can learn new tricks easily.
2) the whole developer-gamer interaction is not egalitarian: developers do know better than gamers in the end because they are the creators of the game world rules. I've never seen any platformer where I can change the inertia of my character through an option. Why can I freely change my turning speed in FPSs?
3) give enough options and choices on how a game feels, and you'll deprive the gameplay of any identity. It's up to the developers to offer me a game with a definite feel that goes with the overall design and theme.
For me, games are defined as much by the limitations they put on the player, as by what skills they offer. Renouncing to definite control choices you avoid players whining, but at the same time you water down your creation. Sounds like scarce integrity to me.
